In The Spotlight

Early Post-Election Look at Money in the House and Senate Elections of 2012

Independent Spending Roughly Equaled the Candidates’ in Close House and Senate Races; Winning Candidates Raised More than any Previous Election

Follow CFI on Twitter:

The tables listed at bottom have been updated since the original release date to include previously undecided House races - 11/16/12.

The Campaign Finance Institute today released its first summary tables on money in the House and Senate elections of 2012. As of October 17, winning candidates for the House of Representatives
had raised an average of $1.5 million, compared to $1.4 million for the full two-year cycle in 2010. (CFI’s historical two-year tables are here.)
Winning Senate candidates had raised an average of $9.7 million through October 17, compared to $9.0 million for the full two years of the 2010 election cycle, $7.6 million
in 2008 and $9.6 million in 2006 (the last time the same seats were up).

CFI’s full tables break down the candidates’ receipts and independent spending by the candidates’ status (Incumbent/Challenger/Open Seat), Party, and Margin of Victory.
The tables are based on the latest candidate reports through October 17 and on party and non-party independent spending reports filed through Election Day.

At the time of this writing, several contests for the House of Representatives remain undecided and are therefore not included in the summaries. As the races become
decided, the tables posted on CFI’s website will be changed to reflect the latest information.

Here are only a few of the highlights that stand out in these tables:

Outside Money:

Outside money was about equal to candidates’ funds in House and Senate incumbent-challenger races, and in House open-seat races, decided by margins of 55% or less
(see Tables 1,
2 and
3). In Senate open seat races decided by 55% or less, independent spending was higher than candidate spending
(Table 4). The “Senate incumbent defeated” category looks different because the two Massachusetts candidates
foreswore outside spending (and $6 million was spent anyway).

Non-party spending exceeded party spending in most of the categories of these competitive races. The exception was in the competitive open-seat House races won by a Democrat.

There was rough parity between pro-Republican and pro-Democratic non-party spending in competitive House and Senate races.
In 2010, pro-Republican spending had the clear advantage (see here).

While there was significant outside spending in most of the close races, there was no relationship between the candidate with more spending and either winning or losing. For example, in Senate incumbent-challenger races
decided by 55% of the vote or less, the unsuccessful challengers were favored by more outside spending than the successful incumbents.
(For more on the lack of a relationship between outside spending and winning in 2012, see this
CFI release.
See here for detailed lists of the individual races with outside spending.)

House candidates:

In more than two-thirds (68%) of the incumbent-challenger races, the incumbent won with 60% or more of the top-two candidate vote.
In those races, the average incumbent raised 9.3 times as much ($1,312,865) as the average challenger ($141,053).

Both challengers and incumbents raised more money in more competitive races, but the challengers narrowed the incumbents’ relative advantage.

Even so, winning challengers ($2.0 million) did not raise as much as the incumbents they defeated ($2.6 million).
As has been true almost every election since disclosure, challengers did not need to raise or spend as much as incumbents to win, as long as they had enough to be heard.

Senate Elections:

Senate incumbents who won with 60% or more of the vote had a 6-to-1 financial advantage over their non-competitive challengers.

There was rough parity in the candidates’ fundraising in the four incumbent-challenger races won by the incumbent with 55% of the vote or less.

While the sole successful challenger (Elizabeth Warren) raised more money ($39.2 million) than the only incumbent who lost in the
general election (Scott Brown, $26.2 million), this was unusual.

The Campaign Finance Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit research institute. Statements of the Campaign Finance Institute and its Task Forces do not necessarily reflect the views of CFI's Trustees or financial supporters.